No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings.

When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.

Truth springs from argument amongst friends.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic

The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today.

The real searcher after truth will not receive the old because it is old, or reject the new because it is new. He will not believe men because they are dead, or contradict them because they are alive. With him an utterance is worth the truth, the reason it contains, without the slightest regard to the author. He may have been a king or serf -- a philosopher or servant, -- but the utterance neither gains nor loses in truth or reason. Its value is absolutely independent of the fame or station of the man who gave it to the world.

Not to be confrontational, but the book of John is the most historically controversial of the four christian gospels. So, while I can with surety assert that it is in the Bible, and with reasonable certainty assert that it was originally written about 1900 years ago, I think ascribing it to a specific personage, Jesus of Nazareth, is, while traditional, in the end not that noteworthy or defensible.

Yeah, but if I'm going to pick up the conjecture-for-its-own-sake end of the argument, I'm going to proceed to scuttle the whole concept of the Gospels, live a life of pagan hedonism, and die a meaningless, ignoble death. Why not?

Yeah, but if I'm going to pick up the conjecture-for-its-own-sake end of the argument, I'm going to proceed to scuttle the whole concept of the Gospels, live a life of pagan hedonism, and die a meaningless, ignoble death. Why not?

Well, sure, if you live in a world view where proper citation of quotes has only one possible outcome, I suppose you've got a point. If, on the other hand, there are a myriad of other possibilities that can be approached with seriousness, I think you might have to consider a spectr

Sure, but I'm parking the thought in the opposite ditch: consideration of endless possibilities as a denial of service attack on life.
When all things are morally equivalent, noise is the new signal.
Closer to useful, say I, is an approach where we realize that there is a standard normal distribution of utility across that spectrum of ideas,
and allow sophomoric crap to be sophomoric crap, and gently ignore it.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

The meaning of the word "ignorance" appears to have been lost, to be synonymous with "absence of knowledge". Yet, looking at the word, it is easy to see its root: to ignore. As such, those who use the term politically or pejoratively would surely be closer to the meaning of the word than those who use it to refer to a lack of knowledge.

For my next trick, I will stand before the tide so that it does not come in.

To be fair, the common usage of "ignorance" as an "absence of knowledge" is more in line with the original latin than the verb form "to ignore". The "i" meaning "not", and "gnosis" meaning knowledge or awareness of.

To be sure, a lot of ignorance these days is willful or selective ignorance. People (me included) have a hard time recognizing things that don't line up with what they expect or understand, and will often actively deny that which contradicts their assumptions.

To be fair, the common usage of "ignorance" as an "absence of knowledge" is more in line with the original latin than the verb form "to ignore". The "i" meaning "not", and "gnosis" meaning knowledge or awareness of.

Bah. Okay, you win:D

To be sure, a lot of ignorance these days is willful or selective ignorance. People (me included) have a hard time recognizing things that don't line up with what they expect or understand, and will often actively deny that which contradicts their assumptions.

Probably there is a truth, but how can we see it? We can only find it in a relative value. Passengers in a train are moving from where we see outside the train, but they are not in the train. Light is recognised as atom and wave at the same time from different viewpoint.

I was supposed to title 'It's true' instead of relativism of truth. Truth must be one, but almost impossible to find it.